Remanded

Sandhya Pattnaik v. Sanjukta Kumari Pattnaik

Orissa HC17 Mar 2021WP(C)/2433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside an order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, which adjudicated a revision petition on merits without first deciding the petitioners' application for amendment of their objection filed post-argument. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.12.2020 set aside; matter remitted to Commissioner for fresh adjudication after deciding the petition for amendment; parties to appear by 05.04.2021.

Sandhya Pattnaik Vs Sanjukta Kumari Pattnaik — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.2433 of 2021

¶2

17.03.2021 Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalei, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite party nos.2 and 3.

¶3

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in R.C. Case No.52 of 2006, whereby he allowed the revision filed by opposite party no.1 under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶4

Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners raises sole contention that after conclusion of argument, when the matter was reserved for orders, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the objection to incorporate certain relevant facts. The Commissioner heard the said petition on 23.12.2020 and posted the matter to 28.12.2020 for orders. Thus, the present petitioners remained under impression that the Commissioner will pass an order on the petition for amendment on the date fixed. But, the Commissioner without passing any order on the petition for amendment, proceeded to pronounce the judgment in the revision on 28.12.2020 (Annexure-5) on merit, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to remit the matter for fresh

¶5

¶6

adjudication of the revision petition, after passing order on the petition for amendment.

¶7

Mr. Dalei, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 though accepted the factual position of the case but submits that the petitioners, who are opposite parties in the said revision, were not cooperating with the court for final adjudication of the revision. On the date, when the revision was posted for orders, the present petitioners in order to delay disposal of the revision filed an application for amendment of their objection, which was considered. Since no favaourable order was passed on that date, it is presumed that the said amendment application was rejected by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the matter was posted to 28.12.2020 and the final order has been passed. On perusal of the impugned order with reference to the documents annexed to the writ petition, it would be clear that the petitioners have not made out any case for consideration. Thus, the prayer of the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication after passing an order on the petition for amendment will be a futile exercise. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶8

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State defended the impugned order and submitted that the petitioners herein could have filed the petition for amendment of the objection earlier when the matter was posted for argument. Supporting the plea of Mr. Dalei, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, Mr. Mishra,

¶9

¶10

learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 23.12.2020 as well as the impugned order. True it is that on the date, when the matter was reserved for orders, the present petitioners, who were opposite parties in the revision filed an application for amendment of the objection. The Commissioner had, in fact, heard the said petition on 23.12.2020. But, from the materials available on record, it appears that the Commissioner did not pass any order on such amendment petition on the said date and posted the matter to 28.12.2020 for orders. On the said date, the Commissioner without passing any order on the petition for amendment proceeded to pronounce the impugned order under Annexure-5 on merit.

¶12

From the above, it appears that the Commissioner has committed a procedural irregularity in proceeding with the matter on merit without passing any order on the petition for amendment. When the Commissioner heard the petition for amendment of the objection, he should have passed an independent order on the said petition before proceeding ahead to pronounce the impugned order under Annexure-5 on the merit of the case.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28.12.2020 under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Consolidation &

¶14

¶15

Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.3 for fresh adjudication keeping in mind the discussion and observations made above.

¶16

In order to avoid delay, parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.3 on 05.04.2021 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter. The Commissioner shall do well to consider the petition for amendment of the objection filed by the present petitioners on its own merit giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and pass an independent order and thereafter, proceed with the matter to adjudicate the revision petition in accordance with law.

¶17

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties as directed above.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not delved into the merits of the case of either of the parties in the revision petition.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

Interim order dated 26.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.1299 of 2021 stands vacated.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

……..……………………

¶23

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶24

Sandhya Pattnaik v. Sanjukta Kumari Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Pattnaik v. Sanjukta Kumari Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridhar Pradhan Vs Secy.,Govt.of Orissa

Paradeep 4T Owners Association Vs Susanta Kumar Samal

Khurshid Begum Vs State of Odisha

Prativa Sahoo@Mishra Vs Rukmani Mishra

Sadananda Panigrahi Vs Joint Commisioner, S and C, Berhampur

Umesh Chandra Tripathy Vs Naresh Chandra Tripathy